Triple
T13455463
| Position | Surface form | Disambiguated ID | Type / Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject | Toulmin model of argumentation |
E311218
|
entity |
| Predicate | componentDefinition_rebuttal |
P36520
|
FINISHED |
| Object | conditions under which the claim does not hold |
—
|
LITERAL FINISHED |
How this triple was built (2 steps)
Every LLM step that produced this triple, in pipeline order — named-entity classification, the disambiguation choices (the exact options shown, with the pick highlighted), and the generated description. The batch + timestamp of each is in the Provenance table below.
NER
Named-entity recognition
gpt-5-mini
Instruction
Given a phrase, classify it is english named entity (e.g., persons, organizations, works of art) in Latin script, or not (e.g., literals, dates, URLs, verbose phrases). For disambiguation, the statement where the phrase occurs as object is also given. Please return a JSON object with `phrase` (string, the phrase being analyzed) and `is_ne` (boolean, indicating whether the phrase is a Named Entity).
Input
Phrase: conditions under which the claim does not hold | Statement: [Toulmin model of argumentation, componentDefinition_rebuttal, conditions under which the claim does not hold]
PD
Predicate disambiguation
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target predicate: componentDefinition_rebuttal Context triple: [Toulmin model of argumentation, componentDefinition_rebuttal, conditions under which the claim does not hold]
-
A.
rearguedWith
Indicates that one party presented arguments again or renewed a previous debate or legal argument with another party.
-
B.
counterpointType
Indicates the specific kind or style of contrapuntal relationship that exists between musical lines or voices.
-
C.
coDefendant
Indicates that two or more parties are jointly named and involved as defendants in the same legal case or proceeding.
-
D.
defendedOn
Indicates that one entity protected, supported, or argued in favor of another entity during a specific time or event.
-
E.
defenseArgument
chosen
Indicates that an entity presents or supports a line of reasoning intended to defend or justify another entity, often in a legal or argumentative context.
- F. None of above.
Provenance (3 batches)
The batch behind each pipeline step, in order, with when it ran. Timestamps are batch-level — stages were processed in waves, so the object chain (NER → NED1 → NEDg → NED2) reads in order, but predicate / elicitation batches can sit in a different wave.
| Step | Stage | Batch ID | Status | When |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| creating | Elicitation | batch_69d806a938b8819097ec43a2229fc7f9 |
completed | April 9, 2026, 8:06 p.m. |
| NER | Named-entity recognition | batch_69dbaefc52448190b30d7999f44a9765 |
completed | April 12, 2026, 2:41 p.m. |
| PD | Predicate disambiguation | batch_69d9a03ce03481908c61094f0cc0c158 |
completed | April 11, 2026, 1:13 a.m. |
Created at: April 9, 2026, 9:41 p.m.